Ok...I will try to address the three folks who commented most recently. And since I read them all at once I will address them all at once. So to, "this is disturbing", "Guest" and "Made to Sit" please bear with me. My only free time to read and compose is early in the morning 5am to about 7am...as such, my own memory, perceptions and insights maybe be drastically effected mearly because of the hours that I write. Then please consider I await the surge of caffine to enter my bloodstream and soon the daily medications will kick in...so with all that in mind....cut me a lil slack as I try to work thru this....if only for my own benifit.
Yes...and I still don't know the truth of the matter. I am not sure at the moment what the hub-bub tween Margret & Marget is about. Shit, it took a week before I knew who JK was/is. The question was brought up, "why it seems to be ok to say anything you want about someone, even if it is not true, simply because you are a Straight survivor?"
Ok, maybe you can help....what was said, will you show a link to the conversation and the subsequent comments that brings you to this question? Addressing the question "Are you guys for real?"...Sure, with memories that are crystal clear along with lapses of time and memory during my incarceration at Straight Inc. If I have a memory of an incident and it is crystal clear, what am I supossed to do with it? Swallow it? Carry it to my grave? Get with a priest? Parents arent a good choice. I haven ever had a discussion about Straight Inc. with my mother or father that ended well.. Where do I go?
Alas, a forum is formed, unmoderated. And I have the capasity to say exactly what I am feeling, faces I am seeing, names as I recall them. As far as I know, I have a freedom here to speak...admittedly, I maybe wrong in regard to names, faces, dates and circumstances. I know this about myself, so I tend to write and discuss emotions, which certainly are not facts and I don't pretend for them to be presented as such. There are moments of clarity and when I write in a moment of lucid thought...names, faces, events, circumstances, witnesses and circumstances are as if they occured moments ago. Yet I still tend to write with an emotive style...I don't plan to write and disclose a name in a flipant manner, however the best of intentions when I sit to write go far astray and names/circumstances end up in black and white.
Now I know my memory is shot way the fuck out (obviously an understatement), due to time that has passed, alot of ETOH (which I havent had in well over a decade) and alot of THC. Any one who knows me well knows this. If I tell you I am not absolutely sure of something...I will tell you...I am not absolutely sure. If I say to you...I know this for fact...Its fact. Having others that have a better recall of the implied events, memories,
conversations...I make it a point to talk with them. And names are important also...convience is one thing, putting a name to a memory...capturing a face that goes to a name. Personally, I draw a line tween phasers and staff. I will make effort to poorly type a person like D@vid @nderson. Even with that, I often feel awkward. But staff members I have no objection, zilch, nothing...no hesitation.
For example, Doug Heminger. Perhaps he has changed, however, he was a sadistic, cruel and evil bastard that loved what he did. Now I know many people will tend to agree with me, and thats ok...and possibly those who disagree, and thats ok. Now, another staff member who rose thru the ranks, Dave McAdams. He was my new comer, I liked him, I thought he was funny. I never saw a streak of meanness in him. Yet there are people who will disagree with me...and thats ok as well. They are my memories and people have said other things about Dave McAdams that dont mesh with my memories of him. This does not make my memories false, nor does it make any others asserations about Dave McAdams false either. I have a friend on here, who was my very first oldcommers roommate...Sam Kinison. He and I have an unspoken agreement to agree to disagree.
Case in point Dave Crock. Sam's memory of Dave Crock and experience with Dave Crock is very different from my own. I hate him, Dave Crock that is and the other side of the coin shows that Sam really has fond memories of Dave Crock. Who is wrong? Who is right? Which is a correct recollection...and which is a false recollection....neither/both? This has nothing to do with the title of being a "Straight Inc Survivor". But everything to do with experiance, perception and memory. As I am entitled to my memories, Sam also is entitled to his memories. Now if he spoke of Dave Crock in a way that does not coincide with my own memories....this does not make my friend Sam a liar. And the opposite is also true. If spew my rage against Dave Crock and it doesn't jive with Sam's memory, this does not make me a liar. Sam and I understand perceptual diferrances, differrnces in experiances, that memories have loope holes and that over three decades memory by it's very own nature begins to do funy things even with the most crystalized of memories.
Which brings up the point of your countering MH "sworn testimony" by saying it wasn't JK, that it was Chris C. Haveing said this before, I run the risk of being redundant...Once I know the truth, I have to ask myself if I really know the truth. And obviously, no, I do not know the truth, but only versions and perceptions of the truth. Now to me, switching blame from a "sworn testimony" and adding a third party only muddies the waters. And sheds no light on the subject at all, it only obfuscates(sp...and I think thats the right word) the situation. Am I to now assume that it was Chris C?. Again, I dont know anything about the incident....could never find it...tired of looking for it....so, from the get-go I have no clue. I am told the truth and then informed of another truth. I am no judge, nor a jury...it would take a act of congress to allow me to be either one. However, I am, as we all are, in a unique position to listen to both sides.
"How would I feel if someone came here and said things about me that weren't true. Would I still be supportive to the person who trashed me because they were a fellow survivor?"
Fair question. Lemme see if I can explain how I tend to handel it. Some one comes and says "Woof wears a red shirt, and is still wearing it." When I look at the facts, I see I am wearing a green shirt. In an effort to set the record straight (no pun) I inform this person that no, I am not wearing a red shirt. Fact is, I am wearing a green shirt. Same person refuses my explaination and again swears about the red shirt. Again, I review the facts, I am wearing a green shirt...does it warrant a second explaination on the board that in fact I am partial to green and am wearing a green shirt? Perhaps...sometimes I can be very passionate about the fact...I am wearing a green shirt. At what point does the conversation, dialouge or debate become moot? Is it worth it, in terms of my own sanity, my internal landscape to be in upheaval in order to convince the other person I am in a Green Shirt? At some point it is a futal effort and I personally have to withdraw or disengage from the debate. Yet maybe that person remembers my parents always brought me in red shirts. As a result, all this person can see me in is a red shirt, just as I was when siting in the middle of the group. But what the hell...three decades have gone by and my tastes have evolved and no longer live with parents that love to put red shirts on my back...I make my own descions now, I changed...and I buy green shirts. And yet the person still smears my name and associates me with red shirts. What can I do? Perhaps this person and I will one day meet, at a gathering or whatever and see me in a green shirt.
Another analogy..short and sweet...A person offers me a heaping handfull of dog shit. He extends his hand and asks me to to take it. I polietly, yet firmly refuse his offering of shit. What becomes of the shit? If they offer and I refuse, they are left with the handfull of shit. After all, it is not my shit, this shit apparently belongs to the rightful owner and so they are left with the handfull of shit. Thier shit, not mine.
My favorite line in the three responces, "Yoda also chimes in quotes obscure proverbs to support mh1979" Perhaps it is self centered of me to assume that "Yoda" was a jab at me. If so, lets review. The quote was "The worse of the two is he who, when abused, retaliates. One who does not retaliate wins a battle hard to win." Seemed appropriate to the circumstance and continues to fit, so I am not sure how or why that may be seen as "supportive" As I read the quote and as I understand the quote, it is not a supportive line. In fact it says just the opposite. Interesting line at the end, "One who does not relatiate wins a battle hard to win". In essence...stand down.
The proverb of the monks was to illustrate that carrying such baggage for extended time, is more troublesome, more cumbersome than the original incident. The proverb was interpreted as "supportive" to mh1979. No, just the opposite. The intent of the proverb of the monks was to gently suggest mh1979 to release the hostility, the anger and the rage. That it may do her more harm than good to dwell over the incident. What may appear as cathartic opportunity for her may backfire and produce results within that she had not anticapated. Yet the question remains for her own health, her own healing...I ask you what I asked in the beging of this post....What do you suggest she do to deal with this memory of said incident?
It was implied, and correctly so, that I support mh1979. I have two horrid memories of incidents involving mh1979. My memory is of a young girl in a real shitty situation...what was done to her, that which I saw with my own eyes was inexcusable. After three decades I carried these memories not sure of the persons name. Recently, these memories and the name associated with the memories were confirmed...the young girl abused was indeed mh1979. I was helpless in both situations to help or to even lend moral support. I don't feel guilt as a general rule. But I carried this guilt for over three decades now. mh1979 released me from the bondage of this guilt.
We may not have seen each other in three decades, I wouldnt know her if I were to walk past her on the street or even to sit across from her in a coffee shop. But a bond has been formed tween us...so to that extent, yes, absolutely, without a doubt I support mh1979. Because now I can! I understand she is subject to memory lapse as much as I am...I have made no effort to confirm her statements or deny them...it is none of my buisiness. But does she have my support as a "Straight Survivor" to another "Straight Survivor" abso-fucking-lutely!
I cant involve myself with the situation of the "incident"...I wasn't there...I support a human being, with all the frailties of my own and dare I say...the frailties we all have. If that can't be seen as simple compassion for another human being, a "Straight Survivor"...then the problem of sight is not mine, but your own. Oddly enuff, I have a certain compassion for that as well.
Made to Sit--- Ya brought up valid points on memories and faith in those memories. We tend to cling to what we believe to be true, based on memories. Memories, in general I think should be questioned, investigated and brought out into the daylite. Some memories like you mentioned, "we know damn well what happened" iron clad kinda memories. With out sounding contridictory (sp) I also believe it is possible that minds turn things around to suit logical (reasoning) or other types of what we think are memories. Convoluted memories make an excellent defence mechanisim, built for survial of our sanity. But this does not discount all memories as bullshit defence mechs. Your right, damned if ya do, damned if ya dont. Cant change it, couldnt rearrange it....so there it was..
Apologies for the long winded post. There is an undercurrent of hostility and I felt it need be addressed. There is no right, or wrong here in my eyes, only neutral. There is however a need I see to be right and the willingness to battle over this need to be right...at the expense of others. I have to ask myself sincerly would I rather be right, or happy. Vast majority of the time, I would rather be happy, than right. It is not my wish to stomp on any toes, or to pee on anyones parade and diffinately dont want to piss anyone off by expressing my opinions here as I have. I have written these words...
In Peace
woof
PS: The Yoda comment...sharp, wee bit sarcastic, timely.....yet very witty and funny...brought a smile to my face....not sure if that was the intent, but thats how it was percieved. Thanks for your candor!